Yixing

[Balthazar]

Mengchen seal, btw, in case anyone were wondering about the characters (孟臣)

... or at least I always though so, although the Meng looks nothing like 孟

Edit: Continuing my discussion with myself, it's an earlier version, see the resemblance already with the bronze script versions.

[LeoFox]

@Youzi, have you seen anything modern that looks like this?

viewtopic.php?p=40376#p40376

[Youzi]

Youzi, have you seen anything modern that looks like this?

viewtopic.php?p=40376#p40376

What do you mean by that? Similar like how?
Tiaosha? Yes, it’s a common technique using prefired Duanni/Lüni, mixed into the clay, either before processing or during making the pot.

[Baisao]

Youzi, have you seen anything modern that looks like this?

viewtopic.php?p=40376#p40376

By modern, this is pre-97. The F1 pots displayed by @Chadrinkincat are waxed so it is hard to tell the quality of the zini used.

To me there are many questions left unanswered. I’ve seen elsewhere that there were pots commissioned pots to be handmade in 1982 so the manufacture techniques and clay may be different from what we normally see from F1 in this period.

[LeoFox]

Youzi, have you seen anything modern that looks like this?

viewtopic.php?p=40376#p40376

What do you mean by that? Similar like how?
Tiaosha? Yes, it’s a common technique using prefired Duanni/Lüni, mixed into the clay, either before processing or during making the pot.

In terms of the workmanship. Does this look post factory to you?

[LeoFox]

Mengchen seal, btw, in case anyone were wondering about the characters (孟臣)

... or at least I always though so, although the Meng looks nothing like 孟

Edit: Continuing my discussion with myself, it's an earlier version, see the resemblance already with the bronze script versions.

That's a nice resource. Thank you for sharing

[Bok]

Baisao

Nice looking pot. Looks like a possible copy a 82 series F1. This seal was used on these pots.

I’ve got an early 80’s Buddha’s hand pot with same seal.

It’s not a clear cut case, but Baisao’s pot does not look like factory workmanship at all to me… the clay also seems very different, although this might be due to light and wax. Seal is also not quite the same, might be angle and lense distortion, but then a seal is the least part to consider.

I think it’s more likely this pot is either pre-factory or a fake. Clay looks pretty authentic to me. Shape is a variety of what I’ve seen to be quite common during ROC. Not sure… but not factory doesn’t seem to be right for this one.

[Baisao]

It’s unlike any F1 zini I have, all 60s-70s, and unlike modern zini examples I have. It has a sandier texture (larger mesh), different appearance when dry, and takes the humidity of my hand much faster. This suggests to me that the clay is from an earlier period.

Additionally, it isn’t constructed like any factory pot I’ve seen. There are no indications I can see of it being formed in a press mold. It has significant tool marks unlike what I see in modern pots. The clay under the rim was excavated with tools. The vent hole does not look like what I usually see on F1 pots.

Were semi-basic F1 pots from 1982 popular enough to fake prior to 1997? Would they be faked using an older zini and using older construction techniques?

Does F1 have a history of copying older pots?

[Chadrinkincat]

It doesn’t look like F1 to me either. Clay, shape craftsmanship etc look off. If I’m not mistaken the F1 version use heixingtu with duanni pieces. Like this one from FB.

I don’t know if the F1 version was based on an older pot with these exact seals but if it was then I’d guess that Baiso’s pot is a copy of that that pot instead of F1 version. This pot looks nearly identical to a few pots I’ve seen on eBay, sold by Japanese vendors known for knockoff F1 pots and rustic faux antique pots.

[Andrew S]

@Baisao: one thing I couldn't tell from just the photos was whether the joint of the foot of the lid to the lid itself feels smooth / contiguous on the inside, or whether it feels like they're two separate components that have been put together (with a kind of pressed-in portion around the joint area). I'd be grateful if you could clarify that.

Of course, I am just curious and trying to learn these skills, so no-one should assume anything from my comments on pots...

Andrew

[Baisao]

Baisao: one thing I couldn't tell from just the photos was whether the joint of the foot of the lid to the lid itself feels smooth / contiguous on the inside, or whether it feels like they're two separate components that have been put together (with a kind of pressed-in portion around the joint area). I'd be grateful if you could clarify that.

Of course, I am just curious and trying to learn these skills, so no-one should assume anything from my comments on pots...

Andrew

I’m curious about this too. It’s Schrödinger’s teapot.

There is a visible joint line where the skirt attaches to the lid. I believe I can feel where the skirt was joined to itself (rectangle formed into a hoop).

@Chadrinkincat, the left character of the seal on my pot is closer to the fakes you posted above. The two right characters are different.

The spout and knob are also different from my example, as is the body shape of one of the above. They also have a cleaner look to them if that makes sense. The duanni is brighter, the clay smoother and glossier. The fakes you posted are overall more clinical looking.

Skirt attachment seam

9ED9B9DB-BF39-484E-ADE1-B1017E445716.jpeg (212.41 KiB) Viewed 2658 times

[Bok]

Would be interesting to see the insides of the above posted pots, to compare the craftsmanship. That would give more clues to this riddle.

[Chadrinkincat]

@Baisao

AFAIK, the pots I posted are not fake. These are the the early 80’s version from F1.

[Baisao]

Baisao

AFAIK, the pots I posted are not fake. These are the the early 80’s version from F1.

Ah, sorry. I thought those were the fakes from the Japanese site.

[Andrew S]

AFAIK, the pots I posted are not fake. These are the the early 80’s version from F1.

That must be why they're not nearly as elegant as Baisao's pot...

I am conscious that it feels odd to be debating the authenticity of a pot that sounds like it is doing a good job at making tea, but I'm also conscious that it is nice to know the truth, to the extent that it is discernible.

I haven't acquired new pots recently, but perhaps I should post my Xiang Xing Cha Hang pot here and see what people decide about it.

Andrew